Strange

Quote

This dual nature of reality isn’t just restricted to light, either, but has been observed to apply to all quantum particles: electrons, protons, neutrons, even significantly large collections of atoms. In fact, if we can define it, we can quantify just how “wave-like” a particle or set of particles is. Even an entire human being, under the right conditions, can act like a quantum wave. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/08/19/in-quantum-physics-even-humans-act-as-waves/

I guess you mean, "that results in the greatest change of volume" (so that if it were in a confined space it would cause the greatest increase in pressure).

I don't know the answer. I'm not a chemist but I wouldn't be surprised if it is a compound with several nitrogen atoms. They tend to be somewhat unstable. For example: https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2011/11/11/things_i_wont_work_with_hexanitrohexaazaisowurtzitane (worth reading for the phrase "limb to chemist ratio")

9 hours ago, MANDREWS85 said:

I was going with the giraffe and cow quote from the OP.  Seam's like giraffes and cows aren't so much different then horses and donkeys?  I'm no expert in the field.  Just thought that was interesting.

Horses and donkeys belong to the same genus (Equus). There are quite a few hybrids possible between horse-like species.

Giraffes and cows are from different families (they are both in the order artiodactyla). Taxonomically, this is the same as the two species of fish, but in terms of time, the fish diverged much longer ago.

(Even if giraffes and cows were almost genetically identical, for purely physical reasons they would not be able to interbreed and so would probably be considered separate species or sub-species)

1 hour ago, martillo said:

The elementary particles cannot be destroyed, they are just transformed into other ones. For instance, photons' elementary particles become neutrinos' elementary particles in photons' absorption processes.

Why? That just in Relativity Theory may be. In this theory p= E/c= (mc²)/c= mc is compatible with a photon of mass m and velocity c.

While the rings rotate with the same axis there is no torque, just attractions and repulsions.

I well know Classical Physics but you don't recognize it. The problem here is that the Modern Physics of Relativity Theory and "Quantum Physics" are just wrong for me and I have something that can replace them… Yet to be developed further of course...

8 minutes ago, martillo said:

You want a fast answer: Section 5.3 of the book: 5.3  Photons' absorption and emission

4 minutes ago, martillo said:

Please visit my site on my profile. Forum rules don't let me post links to personal pages and promote books. You will find the book there.

Just now, martillo said:

The theory agree and explain the short life timed "subatomic particles" found in high energy experiments.

1 minute ago, martillo said:

Section 4.11 of the book predict some of them and introduce the approach to explain the rest. 

2 hours ago, studiot said:

Input  =  Output  +  Accumulation

In what context? I am trying to get my head round what that means!

My contribution: "Are photons particles or waves? Neither: they are photons"

There are two different things that can cause time dilation. One is relative speed and the other is gravity.

6 hours ago, Kenil Rajyaguru said:

I don't understand the concept of when we move in light speed we age less than in earth. Why?

First, not that you cannot move at light speed.

However, if you are moving relative to someone, then you will see their clock run slower (and their length shortened).

So, for example, if you are moving past the Earth in a spaceship, people on Earth will see your clock running slower than theirs (and so you will be also aging more slowly). 

BUT (and here's the tricky bit) you will also see the clocks on Earth run more slowly than yours. This is because it is all about relative measurements.

The reason this happens is because the speed of light is the same for everyone, independent of your speed. If you work out what that means, it turns out that an observer sees other people's clocks run slow and their rulers shorten. 

That has nothing to do with gravity. But gravity does also affect how we see other people's time. If your spaceship was stationary above the Earth, then you would see clocks on Earth running slower because of gravitational time dilation. Now, this may be confusing, but the people on Earth would see your clock run faster (not slower, as in the case of relative velocity). This is all caused by the curvature of spacetime (which also causes gravity).

6 hours ago, Kenil Rajyaguru said:

One more thing when we move with light speed, gravity will be generated inside the space shuttle, but it won't be more than the earth.

Acceleration causes "artificial gravity" (like when you are pushed back into the seat of your car, when you accelerate). But moving at any constant speed does not.

6 hours ago, Kenil Rajyaguru said:

If going through my theory, earth may had less gravity in past time and eventually increased with the time, due to that reason life span of human decreased with time and also the height.

There is no evidence that Earth had less gravity un the past. There is no evidence that human lifespan or height has decreased significantly over time.

7 minutes ago, Alloverthemap said:

I've got a "furthermore" on this subject. I grew up hearing that you can only dream in black and white. Has anyone else heard this? I have a follow-up point if this was once a common conception.

 

Someone else mentioned it on the forum a while ago. I had never heard it before. Maybe some dream in colour and others don’t?

18 minutes ago, martillo said:

I will think in a way to show my approach…  May be I could upload some things as attached pdfs… Give me some time...

19 minutes ago, martillo said:

One thing to be solved is the subject of this thread, the "wave-particle duality" concept.

20 minutes ago, martillo said:

As I said in a previous post you might have not read: "Making an analogy that concept is like to say in Biology that a being was found that sometimes behaves like a fly, sometimes like a whale, and to stay with that concept without asking anything else... ".

21 minutes ago, martillo said:

Other thing would be "dark matter". Something necessary to match General Relativity Theory with the dynamics of galaxies as observed in the telescopes but something that hasn't been experimentally detected anyway. Same thing happening with the "virtual particles" transmitting forces in Quantum Physics…

23 minutes ago, Alloverthemap said:

Sorry, I meant not to compare the dreamscape to what we observe around us, but to what we might imagine if we we closed our eyes and plotted something fantastical in our mind. I guarantee you everything would not stay in place as the figuative "frames" proceeded through the projector. But in dreams, the background doesn't get blurred as you move through the dream -- again, it's as though you're watching it unfold frame-by-frame.

Ok, I see what you mean. But the brain is definitely in a "altered state" when dreaming. Similarly effects can be achieved through chemical means(*), that also disrupt the brain's normal behaviour.

(*) apparently 😐

7 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

What do you mean? We are discussing experiments like gravitational lensing you have brought up - I have just linked some lecture in previous post.

Your repeated claims that GEM can replace GR, despite all the explanations that it can't.

Your claims that gravitational lensing could be explained by refraction, when obviously it can't.

This is clearly just an attempt to promote alternative crackpot theories outside of the Speculations forum.

11 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

Are you claiming that light in gravitational lensing do not behave accordingly to Fermat's principle?

No.

12 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

I don't know what do you mean by anti-GR preaching, but let me remind: this thread was supposed to be focused on argumentation to convince to GR (non-renormalizable, without Einstein).

Then why are you continuously taking it off topic?

3 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

leading for example to refraction due to slow down in some medium, allowing e.g. to build lenses - not necessarily using strong boundaries between materials, can be gradient like in gravitational case.

Gravitational lensing does not behave like refraction. (Maybe because the light does not slow down.)

Your anti-GR preaching is getting tedious.

1 minute ago, Alloverthemap said:

Another thing I find perplexing is how the "sets" for dreams can be so detailed -- and indeed evolve to follow the action -- and yet be presented in real time. When there's movement in a dream, as experienced by the POV, everything in the frame changes in perfect synchroncity with the observer's movements. As I stress, this happens in real time. This is not possible in a waking state.

I disagree (with the last sentence).

We appear to see a detailed, full colour, continuous view of everything around us. But only a tiny part of our field of view is in colour. Only the the thing we are actually looking at is in focus. Our eyes keep moving about, and every time they move the brain blanks out the input from the eyes (so we don't get dizzy) and then fills in the blanks afterwards.

So almost everything we think we see is created by the brain from low quality, fragmentary information. So what happens in brans is not really a stretch at all.

Also, you remember dreams as being as complex as you say. But that memory is created by your brain as well. (For example, we often think we have had a dream that took place over hours, or even days, but the actual time dreaming is actually just minutes.)

Basically, you can't rely on anything you remember about a dream as being an accurate description of what happened in the dream.

Just now, geordief said:

So at the 2 extremes one does not effectively become the other ?

Yes. An extreme example is that beyond the event horizon of a black hole, the radial direction becomes time so the singularity is in your future, instead of ahead of you (in some coordinate systems, anyway).

5 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Now THAT seems to be almost pre-cognitive at times. But it shouldn't, seeing as how the brain has everything you ever experienced to work with in order to make reality and the dream mesh up like that, and whatever your mind comes up with is going to seem perfect, or at least eerily intuitive. 

And our waking consciousness is already "behind" the stimuli the brain receives anyway. So playing timey-wimey tricks on us is the brains forte!

2 hours ago, geordief said:

Is it possible that our experience of time  and space intervals might be mirror images of each other depending on our states of relative motion wrt to objects we observe?

Not so much a mirror image, but they are related by a rotation that depends on your relative speed.

3 hours ago, martillo said:

But with the forum's rules to not post links to personal pages and to not promote any book or something like that impossible to show you my approach.

1 hour ago, Alloverthemap said:

I have "a-ha!" moments like this frequently in dreams, where, I as the protagonist, experience something I can't explain, only for the meaning of the event to be explained to me moments later by an accompanying character. Is this not "pre-cognition." I mean, how could I not know what was happening since my mind is creating the action of the dream? When I get the explanation from that second character, I always have an emotional reaction in my dream -- as though a great revelation has been shared with me.

Because it is a dream, your brain has created the situation, created the other character, and also created the sense of surprise/revelation that you feel. I can't see anything mysterious here. 

I thought this was going to be about the much more interesting way the brain can (apparently) set up a situation in advance so an external stimulus (e.g. the alarm clock) is incorporated seamlessly into the dream (for example, as telephone ringing).

3 hours ago, Duda Jarek said:

Bending wave is universal for propagation with different speeds - is not limited to water, or EM waves:

There is nothing in space to cause refraction. And refraction does not behave like gravitational lensing. 

Just now, Duda Jarek said:

I don't know what is the difference between "neglected" and "dismissed in 30 second" ... only asking why is it so?

Neglected means they never considered it. 

Dismissed after doing the necessary math to show it doesn't work is NOT neglected.

As you have provided no reason to think any such mechanism would fit the observations, why should we take your claims seriously?

10 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

The main question to discuss here is if without Einstein we (or some other civilization) would get to GR.

Then why do you keep bringing up your false and off-topic claims about GEM.

11 minutes ago, Duda Jarek said:

- regarding light bending, we observe it also e.g. in water

Space is not full of water.